Washtenaw County prosecutors said Monday they're reviewing their decision to clear a Pittsfield Township police officer of criminal wrongdoing in the January shooting of an unarmed man.

The review comes after prosecutors received a video of the shooting township police said was not previously available because of technical problems.

That video, obtained by AnnArbor.com under the Freedom of Information Act, shows Officer Tracy Yurkunas shooting domestic violence suspect Devin Reddick once in the abdomen about 5 p.m. Jan. 15 in a parking lot at the Rosewood Village condominium complex off Primrose Lane.

Yurkunas shot Reddick shortly after he got out of a car and turned to face her, the video shows. Immediately after the shot was fired, a male officer yelled, "Put your hands up."

Yurkunas told another officer at the scene Reddick had been reaching for something.

Reddick was treated at an area hospital after the shooting and later charged with domestic violence.

Washtenaw County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller told AnnArbor.com on Monday that he has watched the video, and prosecutors will re-examine their decision based on the video and other materials they expect to receive from Michigan State Police, who handled the investigation into the shooting. He declined to be more specific about what other evidence may be turned over.

The video was shot from a patrol car that was stopped behind Yurkunas' patrol car. Hiller said he didn't learn the video existed until Pittsfield Township police chief Matt Harshberger told him about it March 10. Hiller said he received a copy the next day.

Prosecutors had already ruled in February that Yurkunas acted in self-defense, and AnnArbor.com reported those findings on March 2, which is the same day AnnArbor.com filed a public information request.

“We are certainly going to re-examine the original decision,” Hiller said.

State police Sgt. Dale Smith, who investigated the case, said Monday that he was aware of the video, but hadn't been told that prosecutors were taking another look at the case. He said he doesn't expect the video to change anything.

"As far as we're concerned, the investigation is done," he said. "We turned it over and our findings have not changed."

An internal investigation is on hold pending the latest review by prosecutors, Harshberger said. Yurkunas has been back at work since late February on desk duty after being placed on paid administrative leave, which is routine in such an incident, Harshberger said.

Harshberger said Pittsfield Township police were unaware the video was available until March 10, after an official at L-3 Communications was able to retrieve it. The recording system had previously shown an error message to police.

“It’s new technology for us,” Harshberger said. “So we’re still working out the kinks.”

The shooting

The shooting occurred after Reddick parked and got out of the driver's side door of a car, records show. Police say they were conducting a traffic stop, and the video shows Yurkunas' car lights were flashing. In his arraignment, Reddick disputed that he was being pulled over.

The video shows Yurkunas get out of her patrol car and draw her gun as she stands behind the driver's side door of her car.

On the video, Reddick gets out of his car, faces her, and is then shot and falls in the snow.

According to a report by officer Shawn Willmuth, Yurkunas said at the scene the man was reaching for something. Police said in a news release after the shooting that the suspect "made what the officer perceived to be a life-threatening action."

Willmuth also wrote in his report that he found Reddick was holding a cell phone after the shooting. He said a pat-down search determined Reddick did not have a weapon.

Willmuth stated in his report officer Dennis Marra said Reddick had been combative during an arrest attempt in 2010 and that information was relayed to Yurkunas during the pursuit.

A domestic assault

Officers were looking for Reddick after a woman he knows called 911 at 3:57 p.m., reporting Reddick had assaulted her at an Arbor Circle East apartment. She said Reddick left in her car and might have headed to his brother's home in Pittsfield Township, 911 recordings show. She said she didn't think he had any weapons, but his brother had a registered gun. She added she didn't think his brother would let him have the gun.

According to reports, the woman was assaulted after Reddick asked her to pay a bill, but she declined. He broke her computer, police reports say, grabbed her by the neck and pushed her to the ground. He kicked and punched her, leaving her with bruises to her face, her arm and her shoulder, police reports say. She also complained of pain in her abdomen, but did not require medical attention.

Reddick, 30, of Pittsfield Township, was charged three days later with domestic violence, operating with a suspended license and refusing to be fingerprinted, all of which are misdemeanors. He was not charged with resisting and obstructing police.

Washtenaw County Assistant Public Defender Ronald Brown, who is representing Reddick, could not be reached for comment Monday. Neither Reddick nor the woman who said she was assaulted could be reached for comment.

Reddick was treated at an area hospital after the shooting and later taken to the Washtenaw County Jail, where he had an outburst at his arraignment. He was held without bond, but later released on a $1,000 bond after the arraignment was completed on another day.

Reddick is scheduled to return to court for a pretrial hearing on April 18.

Comments

Ypsi Skunk

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 10:28 a.m.

A) The officers were responding to a DV situation where, as this story indicates, a deadly force assault had already been committed by the suspect: "grabbed her by the neck and pushed her to the ground." By MCOLES standards a deadly force assault is,"Any force used against an officer or another person that may result in great bodily harm or the loss of human life." I don't know about you, but if someone had their hands around my neck, I might think they intended to choke me.
B) This suspect had to know, after assaulting the victim, that the police might be looking for him.
C) The suspect avoids the police cars when he pulls into the complex (where the victim said he would go) after he had assaulted the victim, placed his hands around her neck, and taken her vehicle without permission.
D) If the suspect had a suspended license, then we can assume he is familiar with expected traffic stop etiquette.
Officer Yurkunas, thank you for your service!

police-procedures.com

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 3:23 a.m.

The &quot;reasonableness&quot; of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight…&quot; The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989).

police-procedures.com

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 3:15 a.m.

Washtenaw County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller is correct to re-examine the case in light of new evidence, but it won't alter the outcome of their evaluation. Officer Tracy Yurkunas' decision to shoot was justified by:
1. Her state of mind as she apprehended a violent offender.
2. Her understanding of &quot;lag time&quot; which is the time it takes for the human brain to recoognize, confirm and respond to a life-threatening act. <a href="http://www.forcescience.org/articles/study%20shoot-or-not.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.forcescience.org/articles/study%20shoot-or-not.pdf</a>
3. Her understanding of the law.

Michael Schils

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 2:37 a.m.

&quot;Brave&quot; officer, you say? I got quite the opposite impression from the video. She seems to be overtaken by emotion and I don't know if she is the right person for the job. Again, her reason for having her gun drawn and whether it goes along with the policy of her department should be the first matter of inquiry. None of the officers who were already there, had their guns drawn, so it isn't clear why she felt she had to draw hers.

psaume23

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:46 a.m.

The video supports the decision by the prosecutor's office that the brave officer acted in self-defense and should be cleared. It had to be obvious to the suspect that he was being pursued by uniformed police in marked squad cars. Despite the clear presence of police, it appears from the video that once alighting from his vehicle, the suspect quickly turned around and made a furtive movement with his hand which could alarm a reasonable officer that the suspect was reaching for a weapon. An officer should be able to protect herself or himself in such a situation. How many times or how loudly the officer told the suspect to get his hands up should not be a dominant factor when the suspect appears to be reaching for a weapon.

Roadman

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 1:59 a.m.

He does not appear to be reaching for any weapon. His hand moves forward.
There is no proof he was aware of any &quot;pursuit&quot;. He simply parked his car in a slot.
Why is she brave? Why is she pointing a gun at a man before he alights from the vehicle when there is no evidence he is armed or poses a risk of great bodily harm?

jcj

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 9:44 p.m.

Posters on this site are so predictable! I can look only at the names and know which ones are going to try to persecute the police!
The one thing that is clear is this! If you are generally in support of police officers you will think this was probably justified. If you are generally critical of the police you will think it was not justified. If anybody watches just once in real time (and not 10 times in slow motion or stop action) you would have a harder time judging this to be unjustified.
&quot;The police reports say that Officer Yurkunas waited to turn on her lights until he was near his brother's condominium because other officers were waiting there.&quot;
It would appear that if there were other officers already on the scene that the suspect knew the police were there. I will not jump to the conclusion that he knew they were behind him. BUT after having the advantage of watching the video 4-5 times he definitely jumped out of his car and looked as though at the least he was going to run. And it appears he was reaching under his coat or pulling it back.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 10:40 p.m.

To say that he jumped out of the car is a mischaracterization. You have to look at exactly when the officer shot. He got out of the car normally and then reacted as he saw the officer pointing a gun at him. What happened would not have happened if the officer were not pointing the gun at him. Is that consistent with the department's &quot;use of force&quot; policy?

Arboriginal

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 9:36 p.m.

Watch the video.
As the officer fires, the other cop is saying get your hands up.
BLAM!
I hope the young man employs the services of a skilled therapist to deal with his anger management issues.
He is going to be loaded, he will be able to afford it.

Cash

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 9:18 p.m.

Well, on tv news tonight they announced that the man had a cell phone in his hand and did not know the police car was there.
So that makes the movement make sense to me.
I didn't see that information in the article.

jcj

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 9:45 p.m.

&quot;Well, on tv news tonight they announced that the man had a cell phone in his hand and did not know the police car was there.&quot;
Well if they said so on the news it must be true!

Ellen

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 9:28 p.m.

I turned on the TV 2 minutes too late. I noticed the news van out in front.
it'd be interesting to know if by any chance his cell had rung at that exact moment.
I do believe that if they didn't turn on the lights until right before opening the door, that he may not have known they were there. I imagine he was distracted, possibly high, and focused onto pulling into a parking spot - it's reasonable that he did not even know the po-po was behind him, let alone gun drawn &amp; ready to fire upon him.

walker101

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.

Looks to me that the officer over reacted, victim may have had his hand around his waist but it sure didn't look like he was pointing any weapon towards the officer. I can see if it were at night I would give her the benefit of the doubt, hopefully she doesn't get to gun happy after this or they'll be another shooting. She was not being rushed, he did not say anything to make her think he was about to cause harm, jumping out of the car doesn't mean he's about to shoot someone, cell phones normally don't look like guns to me, lady said she did not see a weapon on him. It's a far cry from self defense, he'll win this in court.

braves03

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.

This was a bad shooting. Just because I get out of my car upset doesn't give the police the right to shoot me. He didn't make any advances towards the officer. She thought she say something that wasn't there and she screwed up. It looks like he reached near his waistbut she never gave it a chance to see what he was doing. Just another unarmed black man shot by the police because she thought she saw something! He didn't draw a weapon, point anything at her, or move toward her. Again, this is a bad shooting and the officer should be released from duty.

Ellen

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 1:24 a.m.

@ Steve h - &quot;The race card&quot; - seems like racist statement to me.
Did you think that race had *nothing* to do with this? are you that naive? Cops are humans. All humans are suseptible to stereotypes, regardless of how much we try to overcome them. Under extreme stress, humans react in ways that perhaps we wouldn't under normal conditions. I think that saying &quot;playing the race card&quot; is insensitive at best, or worse, an excuse to perpetuate racism. Please reconsider your use of this phrase.

steve h

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 10:25 p.m.

there we go! i was waiting for the race card. thanks for playing

Ken K

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 8:02 p.m.

If I was the guy who got wounded I would be thanking the officer for being a crappy shot.

groland

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 8 p.m.

I'm sorry, I see a man get out of his car, grab his unzipped jacket and move backwards as if really startled or afraid. The Police must make themselves heard before shooting, she did not. The average person is not trained in how they should respond to the Police in that situation. The Police on the other hand are trained. She did not follow procedure, did not identify herself and did not verbally give instructions before shooting. I don't care if he is a scumbag, he did not deserve to be shot in that situation.

ToddGack

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:10 a.m.

This guy is not an average person and does know how to act when the police are involved

loves_fall

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 7:47 p.m.

Yeah... I don't see anything wrong with this either. Definitely could see how someone would perceive his actions to be threatening.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 6:52 p.m.

The audio does show that she did say to Mr. Riddick &quot;put your hands up, put your hands up right now&quot; before she shot him. The she told her fellow officer &quot;he was reaching for something&quot;.
Some of the questions that the police asked the only civilian witness were very leading. They start out OK, asking him what happened and he says &quot;He jumped out of the car and went like this and I heard her say freeze and boom she shot him&quot;. However, then they said &quot;it was like a cross draw&quot; to which he responded &quot;yes&quot;. They then took the witness to the police station for an interview but made no recording of the interview. I would like to have seen what motion the witness originally made.
This doesn't necessarily mean this was something criminal but I think the police department needs to study this case and look seriously at how this situation could have been prevented.

grye

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 7:43 p.m.

The order of events was BANG, put your hands up.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 6:51 p.m.

I just received the video from Officer Yurkunas' car and the interview of the only civilian witness (these were inadvertently overlooked in the original FOIA).
According to the video, Officer Yurkunas turned her lights on less than 10 seconds before Mr. Reddick pulled into a parking space. He passed two police cars going the other direction, which did not have their lights on, as he turned into the parking lot. As he passed those cars Officer Yurkunas radioed in that the suspect was running. Since he turned into the parking lot and then turned into the parking space and it was less than 10 seconds, it is perfectly plausible that he did not see her lights. If they were making a traffic stop, why did the first two cars not turn their lights on and block the roadway? They would have had him boxed in.

Cash

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 9:20 p.m.

WDIV said he had his cell phone and didn't see the police car lights. That would make his movement make sense.

citazenspeaker

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 6:45 p.m.

If she didn't use the gun i would have pulled her right off of duty and straight back to training.

Michael Schils

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.

So you would have disciplined the officer FOR NOT shooting an unarmed individual?! You saw there was no weapon, right?

You people need to look at the video more. Brake lights are on so he is putting the car in Drive, he shuts the car off and is getting out of his car. He has NO idea the cop is even there. He is scared and shocked and there is no way he was reaching for something in his waistband. I understand that cops need to react very, very, quickly but to react by pulling the trigger of a gun is WRONG. Yes this guy broke the law and needed to be arrested not almost killed. The question that has already been asked but not answered why in the heck would the female cop even need to have her gun out for a traffic stop. Shoot first and ask questions later, I hope is not the new motto for the police. I got 2 words for you &quot;Geoffrey Fieger&quot;, we will be hearing from him very soon. A2 can report on that next.

JPLewis

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 6:12 p.m.

Completely justified shooting. Any police office who wants to go home alive at the end of the day whould have doen the same. Not even a close call.

Michael Schils

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.

I don't see how the driver's actions can be construed to be any different than what the average person's reaction would be when they get out of their car and suddenly find themselves staring down the barrel of a gun.
It would be nice if all the law enforcement participation in this thread would self-identify so that we could see how heavily the &quot;most popular&quot; votes are being skewed...

Michael Schils

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 6:40 p.m.

I respectfully disagree. In my view, the officer's drawn gun &quot;forced the issue&quot;. So the question of whether the officer was justified in having her gun drawn BEFORE the driver opened his door PRECEDES any question regarding the reaction to the drawn gun.

JPLewis

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.

I would never have that reaction as the suspect did. An officer, in uniform, gun drawn, marked police car, lights flashing, ....the suspect's actions forced the issue.

Robert

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 5:44 p.m.

We're living in a police state.

Mick52

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.

An excellent example of what officers face and how quickly they have to observe a suspect's actions, make a decision and act Couple of things strike me as odd here. First if Mr. Reddick was being sought for a misdemeanor, why did the officer have her weapon drawn? That typically applies to felons and people believed to be armed. Or it can be dictated by department policy, which should cover when and why an officer can draw a weapon and point it at a suspect and if Mr Riddick's prior offense reached that level.
Second, if the recording was known by the MSP investigator, why didn't they wait to see if it was recoverable and why didn't the investigator ever see it? Third, was there a recording device in Officer Yurkunas' vehicle? If so, that tape would record the pursuit of Mr. Reddick including use of a siren and end the discussion of whether or not he knew he had a police car behind him. Also, it should have recorded her communications, including her verbal order to Mr. Reddick, which is inaudible on this tape until the time when the other officer approaches. Perhaps her voice was captured by his microphone. But did she have one too?
If you do not like what you see here, keep in mind that this incident is the type that solves this problem. If it is ruled appropriate by the prosecutor and in any later criminal or civil court proceedings, that will become a part of the standard. Of course that can go the other way too, that the discharge here was premature. It is a good video however for firearms training for use of force, drawing a weapon, use of cover and decision making.
The key here is this shows us what police face daily and how quickly they have to make a decision that could save their lives. Because of Mr. Riddick's actions, getting out of the car in the first place and jerky movements when it is very clear that is a police officer there, I have to give the edge to the officer. We must consider the saying, &quot;better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.&q

Michael Schils

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 5:12 p.m.

Why did the officer have her gun drawn? Especially if it was only a &quot;traffic stop&quot; as the article states. The video clearly shows that the officer drew her gun BEFORE she even knew the driver was exiting his vehicle. Is this consistent with policy?
The claim by the police that they were &quot; conducting a traffic stop&quot; seems to conflict with the officer's claim that she was responding to a 911 call. Can they both be correct? Isn't a &quot;traffic stop&quot; only for a driving infraction (which this was NOT) or am I not understanding the terminology correctly?

Beside good etiquette there's a reason that if I'm ever stopped by the police.
I turn on my interior lights, roll down my windows and keep my hands visible and on the wheel until they make contact..
Then I inform them that I am a CPL holder and if I'm armed.
NO furtive movements, no reaching for my wallet or insurance until the officer can see what I am doing.
ABSOLUTELY no jumping out a the vehicle, squaring off against an officer and having my hands anywhere near my waistline or under my coat.
That's definitely a prescription for hot lead injections.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.

I'm ok with being prudent in the face of armed people. Always have.
Especially now that I am one also.
Doesn't matter if &quot;I&quot; pay them or not.

Robert

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 5:46 p.m.

So you're ok with being afraid to move a muscled around someone you pay to protect you?

Roadman

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 4:48 p.m.

County Prosecutor Brian Mackie will never charge a police officer while in the discharge of his or her duties.
There is an Old Boys network in the County that looks out for each other.
Just like it did in the Lee case in West Willow.
Don't hold your breath waiting for charges.
Your tax dollars at work.

Kai Petainen

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.

Without reading the article or the comments... the guy jumps out of a car and looks as if he is going to quickly reach into his jacket. The officer did nothing wrong. Unfortunate circumstance.
One day I met with officials to talk about the thing I always talk about (oil spills)... the officials explained to me that what I had witnessed was not what I had witnessed.... this is what they told me..
'sometimes we respond to a suicide and it is a murder. sometimes we respond to a murder and it is a suicide. what you see is not what you think has happened'
so from that perspective, although i see what i think happened in this video, then i need to remind the police officer of his statement to me, and that what i see in that video may not be what happened.

HADES

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.

Good job Pittsfield Police Department.
The guy should have listened and obeyed the officers.
You can see the guy moving his hand towards his waistline. If I were a cop I would have thought he was going to pull a gun.
I don't see anything wrong with what the officer did.

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 5:08 p.m.

He had no time to listen to any commands. He jumpt out of the car, and was shot. No commands were uttered until after the shooting.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 4:27 p.m.

&quot;The guy should have listened and obeyed the officers.&quot;
The officer gave no orders before she shot him. He says he didn't know she was there until he got out of the car so what orders did he not obey?

bunnyabbot

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.

from what I have seen of the clip it seems justified. I would have assumed as well he was reaching for something too. It looks as though he is almost going to go into some sort of posturing tough guy stance. The point is it all happened quickly and the officer had to make a split second decision. Luckily the patrol car behind hers had this frame of reference, to me it shows she was justified.

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:55 p.m.

&quot;It looks like he might have been trying to pull a gun out or something. I dont know&quot;...The key words being &quot;or something&quot; and &quot;I dont know&quot;.
That is what it sounds like the officer said.
Let me tell you something...before useing lethal force, &quot;or something&quot; and &quot;I dont know&quot;, should not be in your vocabulary.

Adam Betz

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 4:17 p.m.

And THAT is exactly the point I was trying to make above. Well said Atticus.

Trouble

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:50 p.m.

Moral: When stopped by Police, do not quickly bolt out of car and throw arms and hands out toward Police person. Bad things can happen!

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:58 p.m.

Are you suggesting that the punishment for making a stupid mistake, is to be shot?
The moral of the story, is that our police officers need to be prepared to use less lethal means when confronting someone suspected of a crime.

Ellen

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:08 p.m.

wow, that went down VERY fast.

TruBlue

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.

Scary to think this could have happened to me on the mean streets of Saline.
A cop asked me for ID as I was walking down Michigan Ave. Turns out the alarm had gone off
at the bank. Scary to think the cop could have shot me while I was pulling out
my wallet.
We don't need trigger happy cops on the street.
I don't think she did anything criminal but she definitely
shouldn't be carrying a gun.

Ellen

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:11 p.m.

It's scary that this occurred in my complex. My kids and I ride our bikes near there almost every warm day. We probably would've been run over!

Basic Bob

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:42 p.m.

I'm glad to see a range of opinions. That reinforces my belief it was a judgment call, not a Rodney King incident. I bet that really hurts to get shot in the belly.

DBH

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:42 p.m.

From the geometry of the two automobiles, I think it is possible that the lights on the police car were not easily visible to Mr. Reddick until he exited his car and turned in the direction of the officer. If so, his reaction visible on the video could reasonably be construed as a startle response. His behavior immediately upon exiting his car seems to me to be pretty normal. Only upon looking at the officer with her gun drawn and lights flashing does his behavior change to a combative stance.
A reconstruction of the orientation of the two vehicles would add a lot to the assessment, as it would increase or decrease the probability that the flashing lights would have/should have been visible to Mr. Reddick. It will not, however, determine with certainty if he actually did ever see them.

braggslaw

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:30 p.m.

The officer did nothing wrong...

Will Warner

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 1:14 a.m.

Wow, what are the changes that someone named Atticus F. and someone named Boo Radley would be debating the justness of (potentially) lethal force in given circumstances. As I recall, Boo killed a guy who had it coming, and Atticus had to be talked into seeing that it was justified.

voter

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 6:14 p.m.

Right because as the video shows the Officer had more then enough time to give warnings. It was a second and a move was made for the waist. Common place where guns are kept. Also you may have some crediblity if you have ever said anything nice about police but in all of your blogs the police can do nothing right. Even questioned Trooper Zook about homeless people.

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.

Boo, the question is about this officers judgement. I never said the they have to wait until they're shot at either. However, I would like to have the officer see a weapon before fireing, or at the very least warn said suspect that their life is in danger if they continue to make threatening movements.
Other wise this sets a dengerous precident to the actual people the police are supposed to be protecting.

Boo Radley

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.

Yes, Atticus ...
It very often is absolutely right. Officers are not required to wait until a suspect shoots first to protect themselves. The officers that do usually don't survive many encounters.

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.

So I guess shooting an unarmed person is right?

Ron Granger

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.

Could someone post a link to the video? My browsers don't work with all the crap on the annarbor.com site.

To SW40 and everyone else who thinks this officer was in the right: Just because that stance was taken does not give warrant to use deadly force. Certain stances are simply an escalation of force, no different than an police officer putting on gloves to breaking out a baton to tazer then finally a deadly weapon in the form of a pistol. This use of force went from 0 - 4 and it was not warranted.
I've been in the infantry in both the Marine Corps and Army for 12 years and served multiple tours of duty in support of both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. On the battlefield as a First Lieutenant I would be investigated for shooting an un-armed civilian....and many American service members have been prosecuted and sent to prison for the same mistake. That is in WAR on a BATTLEFIELD. What makes this situation so disturbing is that it happened in our town and under a much less stressful situation. This officer was wrong and she was stressed out, scared and obviously lacked the training to harness those emotions appropriately, resulting in this man being wrongfully shot. It appears to be a strong lack of training in the Pittsfield PD as well as most others from what I've seen. There is clearly a double standard for police officers being held unaccountable for these horrible mistakes which they should pay for, just as my fellow men and I have to pay for our mistakes in war.

Roadman

Wed, Mar 23, 2011 : 12:01 a.m.

My point is that there not only was no weapon displayed; none was even perceived by the officer.
Reddick apppeared to be in an unstable emotional state and saw a gun pointed at him. To me it looked like he panicked and acted reflexively.
I know a peace officer in Detroit that has told he had been in a situation where a person tried to make furtive movements while a gun was pointed at him, but the officer restrained himself as no weapon was seen. Yurkunas should have showed similar restraint.

leaguebus

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 7:17 p.m.

I have a close relative currently in Afghanistan and for his unit the rules of engagement are that he cannot shoot until shot at. How many men do we have to lose before this changes or we get out of an ugly situation made worse by politics.
All the quick moves getting out of the car would have made me suspicious enough to shoot also. No use being the slow one in a situation that could result in my never seeing my family again. She did not empty her weapon into this person, which makes me feel that she was under control.
@Adam, thanks for your service to our country.

Will Warner

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 5:07 p.m.

lol, Adam.
But on watching the video at full speed, and knowing the circumstances of the stop, it's a border-line call and the officer should be given the benefit of the doubt. So should our soldiers in similar circumstances.
Thanks for your service.

Adam Betz

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 4:18 p.m.

@Awakened.....Thank god I don't have children....that I know of anyway.

Awakened

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 4:05 p.m.

@ Adam Betz.
Thank you for your service.
&quot;I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no mercy until the South begs for mercy.&quot; William Techumseh Sherman before burning much of Georgia and the Carolinas.
Gen. Sherman would have disagreed with you. Someone in charge with his attitude would have ended the Afghan conflict years ago.
I don't want your children and my grandchildren fighting there.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:38 p.m.

There has to be a balance to the risk faced by an officer and the risk to a member of the public. If we accept the excuse that he &quot;might&quot; have had a weapon then we accept any shooting of a citizen short of malice. I think it is not unreasonable to expect an officer to see a weapon before using deadly force.
Thank you Adam for your perspective. I think it is important to think about why the military's rules of engagement are so strict. Every civilian shooting risks the loss of the public's trust and so our soldiers do take some additional risk to make sure there are no mistakes. I think our police need to take some of the same perspective so that they do not lose the public's trust.

Adam Betz

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:33 p.m.

SW40, you make some good points but I simply don't buy it. If those are indeed the rules that our police departments go by, I'm even more saddened by the increase of police force, lack of community engagement in recent years and high level of disregard shown to the general public by so many (again, not all) police officer int he Washtenaw County area. Now serving as a military reservist after my active duty time, many of my friends are police officers and they are very honorable folks. However, they come from different backgrounds than a lot of police officers, ie. they don't simply go through a 2 year community college or university program. They have a strong commitment for Constitutional law, which I have found many other officers do not know a thing about.
My point is, more training is needed and this was a hard call for the police officer to make. I've been in similar situations as an infantryman and they are tough calls. But that is where training, common sense and emotional control kick in. I can tell you she had very little emotional control in this situation and most likely reacted according to the training she received. If she did react according to department policy, the department clearly needs to take another look at that policy and how they value the lives of the people in the community they are supposed to serve. I'm all about supporting police officers, but the sad thing is there is a grown trend of under trained, careless and &quot;I'm above you measly citizen&quot; attitude amongst these departments.

SW40

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.

By the way Adam, the use of force continium doesn't require a police officer to escalate in steps on the use of force. Like ok first I tried my hands then a baton now a taser, ok now I can finally shoot the guy armed with an assault rifle. Every once in awhile we take a side of an issue based on a knee jerk reaction. Because I think your an honorable person you should take another look at this scenario. This police officer does not have to wait too see a weapon, nor does she have to be shot at to first defend herself. And by the way I'm sure our soldiers over seas would be a lot safer if our rules of engagement were changed.

SW40

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.

Adam,
You are confusing the military's rules of engagement and Michigans MCOLES use of force continium. If a reasonable police officer believes they or other person's are in danger of being killed or sustaining great bodily harm a police officer is justified in using deadly force. I'm not going to argue with you this officer's level of training nor would I compare a soldier's to a police officers. You are in a unique situtation of having served in combat and recieved a great deal of training, that doesn't mean every soldier reacts the same way everytime they are faced with deadly force choices. Thanks for your service but remember our police officers are serving their communities back home with just as much honor, try supporting them instead of critiquing a video.

voter

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:08 p.m.

We maybe the rules should be change for you guys. People should not have to be shot at first to stop an aggressive situation. The video appears that the suspect was foing for a weapon and if someone in the service would have shot him in the same situation I would back the person in the Army, Marines or citizen.

Adam Betz

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.

Voter, thanks for saying that...what I do is simply a job, no thanks needed.
As for the video, the problem I STILL have is there was NO weapon produced. No shot should have been fired without a weapon being produced. Once that happens, it's fair game. Our rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have always been a weapon MUST be present and most of the time, they have to be aiming it at you in order for us to fire back....furthermore, in many situations we cannot return fire unless being shot at first.
The difference here is that myself and my men are highly trained infantryman who are used to stressful situations....a large majority (not all) of the police officers in our area are not and they need much much more training. Not just in situations such as this but in handling and dealing with the public altogether. They have gotten away from their roots of PROTECT and SERVE.

voter

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.

Watch the video. Wasn't just the stance. There was more. But thank you for your service.

tiredofmess

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:08 p.m.

Wow!! that's all I can say.He will not have to worry about anymore bills being paid because pittsfield will take care of him.
Shoot first and then say &quot;put your hands up&quot; now how does that work.

SeaEagle

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:07 p.m.

I read the article and wanted to assume that the officer acted too quickly - i mean what kind of action can justify a shooting at a traffic stop?
Then I watched the video. This kind of action justifies it.
I would also note that there's more to this than we see in the video. When the video starts, the officer is already on high-alert, so some events have already happened to make her feel like this isn't an ordinary stop, and the activity has been going on long enough that a second police car has been able to arrive at the scene.
Kodos to the officer for doing her job in a high-stress situation.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.

Actually, the two other officers were following directly behind officer Yurkunas and another two police cars were close by waiting for the suspect at his brother's condo. This was an arrest that was planned out ahead of time. The two officers that were following Yurkunas had enough time to meet at the police department, get a report from officer Marra and then follow officer Yurkunas to the scene. What had happened was not necessarily Mr. Reddick's behavior but was planned out by multiple officers. That is why I say that there should be a review of the policies and procedures that led to the situation.

Barb's Mom

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:48 p.m.

@ trespass Domestic Violence SHOULD NOT be considered misdemeanor assault. My daughter was murdered by her estranged husband in a domestic violence incidence. Any and all domestic Violence should be considered a felony. It was the first time he assaulted her and he killed her.

Brad

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 4:31 p.m.

That is horrible. I am sorry to hear of your loss. My heart goes out to you and your family.

BigMike

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:24 p.m.

After the fact, with time to reflect, it looks like the shot may have been a tiny bit quick. However, officer Yurkunas didn't have time to reflect, and those fancy moves Reddick made did look aggressive. I'd vote to clear Yurkunas of any wrongdoing, and here's why: if she had waited another second and Reddick did have a weapon, we'd be reading a very different story, one in which both an officer and a suspect were hospitalized.

CPS

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:19 p.m.

Law enforcement officers need to make SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS, and the speed at which this man jumped out of his car with his hands near his beltline can easily be perceived as reaching for something.
This officer should be cleared (again) of any wrong-doing--it appears to be a fully justified self-defense shooting.

Adam Betz

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:04 p.m.

I couldn't disagree more. What questions do you ask yourself when looking at this video to come to this conclusion?

ksr48

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:11 p.m.

Thank you for your service to our community Officer Yurkunas. This video confirms that you had justifiable reason. Especially with advance word that he had potential access to a firearm and was violent, I would have acted the same way. This guy clearly was assuming an aggressive stance.
You had less than a split second to decide to either give your life or protect our community. Thank you for making the right decision. That is why we are fortunate to have people like you looking out for us.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:11 p.m.

Both Mr. Reddick and Officer Yurkunas are lucky that she shot while ducking behind the car door. If she had maintained her aim and shot, he would be dead. An unarmed black man shot and killed by a white police officer, then try explaining &quot;he stuck his hand up like he was pulling a gun out, I don't know&quot;. I think the Pittsfield police department needs to be asking how do we prevent this from happening again?

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.

Boo, This officer had back up. And yes officers need to be able to protect themselves. However, I question the officers judgement in this case as to weather she truely was in danger.
We can not give police carte blanche to kill people simply because they have a dangerous job.

Boo Radley

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:06 p.m.

Atticus,
It is difficult for a police officer to do things in the interest of public safety if they do not first protect their own lives. It is certainly not in the best interests of public safety for our officers to be injured or killed in the line of duty.

nowayjose

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.

Video clearly shows this isn't a case of shooting a unarmed man just simply getting out of his car. Your entitled to your opinion but thats all it is, and the people who make bigger decsions about this dont agree with you.

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:43 p.m.

Just because you have a hard job, is no justification for shooting an unarmed person.
I realize the police need to be able to react quickly, but we also need to think of the safety of our citizens, as well as people who are accused of a crime.
I want to feel safe when being pulled over by the police, for whatever reason. I dont want to feel like if I make one wrong move, that I will be killed.

voter

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:04 p.m.

Atticus-I agree that it what they chose and many people here think the officer was correct. I am saying come out and show everyone how it is done instead of second guessing from behind a computer. It is your opinion that the officer acted wrong. Many disagree including the Prosecutor.

nowayjose

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.

Atticus, what do you know about police training. You are insinuating that this isn't proper in relation to current police training. Please enlighten me about your police traing background, on how this was improper.

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.

Voter, this is about our officers being properly trained. Officers also take on the job knowing there is risk involved, and they need to be properly prepared. I realize it's often a hard, sometimes thankless job. But it's their chosen profession, and they need to do things that are in the interest of public safety.

voter

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.

I will try again because this does not violate conversation guidleins as written. I asked why doesn't trespoass get a job in law enforcement and show everyone how it is done. On topic and not name calling.

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.

nowayjose, you forget to mention that she made a split second decision that put another persons life in danger... We need our officers to be better trained than that.

nowayjose

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:04 p.m.

I'll bet its pretty comforting to be able to watch this video over and over nit picking it at the safety of your computer at your home or office, knowing you don't have to make life or death decsions that dont get to be replayed over and over.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:09 p.m.

He was undisputedly unarmed and he was shot seconds after he got out of the car because a motion of his hand that any one of us could have made when we are startled. I don't think the officer shot out of anger or malice, so I don't think it was criminal but we should look at the policies, the training and the officers temperment to see what went wrong. Some questions I have include, why does an officer point her gun at a suspect who is wanted for misdemeanor assault? With multiple officers present shouldn't she have pulled her taser? Were her actions affected by the report from Officer Marra that the subject had been combative in a previous incident? Was that true? Should policies require that an officer see a weapon?

Awakened

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.

Always assume a misdemeanant is unarmed until he pulls a weapon?

DFSmith

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:04 p.m.

Again trespass, the cops dont decide if the suspect was wanted for either a felony or a misdemenor assault. All they hear on the radio is that a violent assault has taken place, the suspect is on the loose, and that said suspect needs to be found and detailed. The decision on what the guy was charged with was made by members of the DA's Office, weeks after this incident took place.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:08 p.m.

A key fact, which is in dispute, is whether or not he even knew she was there until he got out of the car. He says no. The police reports say that Officer Yurkunas waited to turn on her lights until he was near his brother's condominium because other officers were waiting there. She only turned on her lights and never used her siren. Thus, it is perfectly plausible that he did not know she was there until he got out of his car and turned to see he was staring at the barrel of a gun.

RealityCheck

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.

Have you ever jumped out of your car like that? He knew that he was wanted, and he was upset about it. He jumped out of his car and immediately faced the officer in a threatening manner. This is clear cut. I know that you have a problem with tasers, but now it appears that you have a problem with police in general...shame on you.

ArthGuinness

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:54 p.m.

DF Smith - No it's not &quot;absurd&quot;, at least based on the given information. If you have other information, please share.
BTW, I'm still on the cops side in this case. A guy accused of violent behavior popping out of a car quickly and appearing to reach for something is going to get shot by any officer that values their own life. I've definitely seen cases where the police abuse their powers, but this one is not it.

DFSmith

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1 p.m.

To suggest that he didnt see the cop car right on his tail is absurd.

Cash

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:02 p.m.

My concern with this story is the appearance of the MISSING video. Why didn't the prosecutor ask questions as to where it was? Is there any way to authenticate it in any way? I mean, videos do NOT disappear and then reappear....unless there is manual intervention...and it could have been accidental. Or not.
Somehow when an incident like this occurs, there should be third party intervention immediately to obtain the video and preserve it for future viewing.

Roadman

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:04 p.m.

I agree. It seems that would be the smart thing to do , however why would the prosecutor's office exonerate the officer without viewing the video - the best evidence. It is absurd and illutrates to me that the County Prosector's Office wanted to rubber stamp a free pass to the deputy.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:49 a.m.

I do have a problem that the video wasn't made available till March 10 almost 2 months after the incident. It seems like a &quot;circle the wagons&quot; mentality.

Awakened

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:38 p.m.

Amen!

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:46 a.m.

After watching it 3 times and stopping it I think the shooting may have been a tiny bit quick but all in all I may have done the same thing. I do have a nitpic that once you've put a bullet in the guys abdomen expecting him to put his hands up may not be realistic.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:59 p.m.

Bob,your correct the officer doesn't know the condition of the wounded suspect. He could be dying for all they know. Which is why I suggest telling a wounded suspect to put his hands up may not be realistic if you don't know how badly he is wounded..

bob

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:33 p.m.

The officer yelling put your hands up doesn't know 1) IF he has been seriously injured and 2) IF he has a weapon. People with gunshot injuries have been known to continue to shot at people.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:28 p.m.

How about offering him some first aid as well. Don't they teach police officers first aid? All they do is say the ambulance is on its way. How about looking at the wound and see if they should put pressure on it to stop bleeding.

Chris Bidlack

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:45 a.m.

I've watched the video only once as I write this (as the officer only had one chance to experience the incident), and I also would have fired had I been in the officer's position. The suspect, charging out of his car as he did, gave me the split-second impression he was going to do the officer harm. If I change my mind after additional viewings, it will be because of hindsight, something the officer had no chance to experience.

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.

Being prepared to shoot, and actually shooting someone, are two seperate issues, Awakened.
Also, what if someone doesn't know how to properly comply? Sueing the police can not bring back a loved one.

Awakened

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.

And when officers are gunned down? It it the officer's fault for not being ready?
If the police stop you then comply in a way that is least likely to result in your death. Sue them later if you'd like.
This cat is lucky to be alive!

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:24 p.m.

If you would have fired on an unarmed man if you were in that position, you would be in prison right now. As you should be.
Also, officers are supposed to be better trained at handling these situations.
Every time a police officer shoots an unarmed person, they always use they same excuse; That they believed the person was reaching for a gun.

TruBlue

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:41 a.m.

Wow looks like abuse of power to me.

Arboriginal

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:29 a.m.

BLAM.........get your hands up!

Carolyn

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:14 a.m.

Shoot them, then tell them to put ther hands up?

DFSmith

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:58 p.m.

No Carolyn, looks like the female cop shot first becasue he made motions that made the f cop suspect that he was reaching for a handgun. the cop shouting &quot;hands up&quot; got there after the shot was fired

City Confidential

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:08 a.m.

I can't believe that there is any question, especially after seeing the video. This guy jumps out of the car, spins around into a shooter stance (one leg in front of the other), with his right hand out in front of him at just above waist high - all in the direction of police office (lights flashing) who has her gun drawn. And the article says he had a cell phone - a metal object - in his hand! Police officers are forced to make literally life and death decisions with unknown variables in milliseconds and I think we should all try to remember that in instances like this. This officer was completely justified, in my opinion.

Mick52

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 5:12 p.m.

That is not a shooting stance.

EBL

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 11:07 a.m.

Guy accused of domestic violence is stopped by police. He pops out of the car, really fast, makes a move toward his waistband. She fires. Split second decision. To a neutral observer, she had a reasonable fear a violent felon was going for a gun. Took me about three viewings to figure it out. I hope it takes the prosecutor about the same time. No crime by her. I hope they clear her quickly. You can see how traumatized the officer was. It's a tough job, but she acted appropriately.

Barb

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:48 p.m.

I'm talking about this situation, based one what I see in the video and what information is provided in the article. Her lights were on, she was behind him. I can't say absolutely but if I were in the officer's shoes, I would have found his actions threatening.
I'm not going to address some random hypothetical you put out there.

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.

Barb, under that frame of mind, the police could justify shooting someone outside of the Brown Jug after a fist fight.
Also, how could you say he knew full well that the police were behind him? were you there? were you in his shoes that day?

Barb

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:10 p.m.

A suspect accused of a violent act is someone the police would be extremely wary of. End of story. There's no way other way to read the situation the police officer was faced with other than to assume she was being threatened. He acted in a threatening manner knowing full well a police office was behind him. Really. It's hard to see it any other way.

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.

EBL is suggesting that this person was in fact a violent felon...As far as I know, this man had never been convicted of any felony.
If anything, you could say that he was a suspect in an assualt. I dont even know if you could accurately say that he was a felony suspect.

DFSmith

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.

trespass- the cops would get a reortsayingthat a domestic violence type assault had taken place, and that they were supposed to take said suspect into custody. Now, whether it was a misdemenor or a felony assault was decided by the Prosecutors office after the fact. When the cops deal with the situation, all they know is that a suspect is running around, who has assaulted someone, and who needs to be placed under arrest. And therefore, the cops have to assume tha tthe suspect may be armed and dangerous. They would be fool hardy if they approached the situation like it was the cop going to meet her friends at Arbor Brewing CO .

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:16 p.m.

Where did you see a &quot;violent felon&quot;? He was wanted for misdemeanor assault not a felony.

SW40

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 10:56 a.m.

Pause the clip at the five second mark, he's facing her with his hands near his waistband/jacket area and it appears he's reaching for something. Do our police officers have to wait until their shot to defend themselves, this guy made a bad decision by getting out of a vehicle on a traffic stop and facing the officer, bottom line is she thought she was in danger and took action. End of Story. It takes a split second to draw a weapon and attack, lets stop the monday morning quarterbacking.

I think trespass has a point here, we just do not know if Mr. Reddick knew the officer was there. If he did, his actions were inappropriate. He should have stayed in the car. His hand was at his waistband. That is not enough cause to shoot. It looked more to me that he was going to run to the left, his right.

cinnabar7071

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 4:29 p.m.

We need a dislike botton.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.

@DFSmith- actually, if you look at the picture and think about what direction Mr. Reddick's rear view mirror is pointing, the lights would not have been visable in his rear view mirror.

Atticus F.

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 1:15 p.m.

It's frightening to think that anybody could condone this sort of reckless police behavior.
No police do not have to wait until they're shot at before returning fire...But reaching for a cell phone or wallet should not be a life or death decision.
we need our officers to be better trained than that. What if someone was not familliar with what to do when being pulled over? Or if they were from another country, and were simply reaching for their wallet?

DFSmith

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:51 p.m.

trespass- the cop car was right behind the Mr Reddick's car with the lights flashing. There is simply no way he could not have known that there was a cop car following him.

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:25 p.m.

Did he know that she was there when he got out of his car. That is a point in dispute. He was at his destination, he parked and got out of his car. Isn't that what all of us would do if we did not know the police cars were there?

Jim Pryce

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 10:54 a.m.

I see nothing wrong done by the police officer. The way he jumped out of the car to face her appeared to me to be a possible chance to rush her, &amp; put her in serious danger.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 5:19 p.m.

Yep non lethal force options. Unfortunately the suspect didn't sit in his car to stew while they deployed them. Which is how they are often used (in a stand off situation).
In a rapidly evolving critical incident with unknown weaponry against someone already accused of assault? Not so much.
He jumped out of the vehicle, squared off against an officer and had his hands by his waistband. In fact if you view the video slowly one hand is hidden by the jacket and is the archetypal pose of someone drawing from concealment (cross draw).
IF he had a weapon and the officers first responded with less lethal ordinance, what might have happened then?
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/04/eveningnews/main20039492.shtml?tag=cbsnewsTwoColUpperPromoArea" rel='nofollow'>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/04/eveningnews/main20039492.shtml?tag=cbsnewsTwoColUpperPromoArea</a>

trespass

Tue, Mar 22, 2011 : 12:22 p.m.

There were three officers present and two or three more there within seconds. He did not rush her but even if he did, If he did not have a weapon, they had non-lethal force options.